Soru Who Is the Composer of This Peşrev ?

[nourathar]

This week's puzzle from the Şamlı Selim "Sazende" book is this peşrev: I believe it is Sababuselik, but who is the composer ?
I still can't read the Ottoman script, but doesn't it say "Tatarın" up there ?
But that would be strange since Gazi Giray Han lived two centuries before Dede Efendi, who invented Sababuselik ?
Or is it another name ? Or another makam ?

I would be very grateful if some of the esteemed experts on this forum could help shine some light on this.

Apologies for the bad pictures because of the bad light:

 

[Derûnhân]

Your conclusions are spot on.

I can't read the Ottoman script myself but there aren't many sabâ bûselik peşrevs in the system, so fairly easy to spot the correct one: Peşrev - Gazi Giray Han (Tatar) - Saba Buselik

As you see in our system it is also saved as Gâzi Giray.

My guess is either when he wrote it, he didn't name it "sabâ bûselik", at a later date someone classified it as that makam.

Or the more likely case is that this piece was written much later and someone just attributed to him. There is a similar thing going on with Farabi. According to our system 40+ pieces belong to him which in reality can't be possible at all. Someone just faked names, I assume it was done in the early 20th century or late 19th.

Not sure why they did it.

 

[efrūḫte]

Your conclusions are spot on.

I can't read the Ottoman script myself but there aren't many sabâ bûselik peşrevs in the system, so fairly easy to spot the correct one: Peşrev - Gazi Giray Han (Tatar) - Saba Buselik

As you see in our system it is also saved as Gâzi Giray.

My guess is either when he wrote it, he didn't name it "sabâ bûselik", at a later date someone classified it as that makam.

Or the more likely case is that this piece was written much later and someone just attributed to him. There is a similar thing going on with Farabi. According to our system 40+ pieces belong to him which in reality can't be possible at all. Someone just faked names, I assume it was done in the early 20th century or late 19th.

Not sure why they did it.

I would agree with the latter conclusion. While it is possible that the makam was altered later, we mostly see this 'dynamic makam classification' (for the lack of a better term; the best examples of this are between MSS and Edvâr) between makams with large repertoires and smaller ones with similar definitions, respectively; Rast with Rehâvi, Pençgâh and Sazkâr for instance. Saba-Buselik is not a makam that is very open to this type of alteration; the makam requires a very specific 'modulation' (or rather a combination of makams) that is not often seen in earlier works, it is not a coincidence that it is a relatively rare makam. Basically the only conclusion is that this is pseudographia.

Quick addition (answer?) to @Derûnhân's last sentence, pseudographia existed to some extent in all eras of the Makam tradition, due to the nature of transmission (see the Maraghi corpus); however, the 'explosion' of pseudographic pieces in the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially concerning early composers, is likely due to the encroaching Western tradition and its perceived superiority. Compilers of Ottoman compositions during these times had to 'create' a repertoire for earlier times, in order to compete with the earlier repertoire of Western music. Ironically, the actual earlier repertoire of makam music was there, literally hiding in plain sight; in the works we now call Kantemiroğlu Edvârı, Kevserî Mecmuası and Mecmua-ı Saz ü Söz.

(After reading this again, I do feel a bit out of line with how much rambling I did, but I guess my main point is that in the late Ottoman period there were a lot of [seemingly deliberate] false attributions, so this should not be a surprise.)

 

[Levent Çelik]

Herşeyi de açık etmeyin yahu

 

[nourathar]

Or the more likely case is that this piece was written much later and someone just attributed to him. There is a similar thing going on with Farabi. According to our system 40+ pieces belong to him which in reality can't be possible at all. Someone just faked names, I assume it was done in the early 20th century or late 19th.

Not sure why they did it.

Quick addition (answer?) to @Derûnhân's last sentence, pseudographia existed to some extent in all eras of the Makam tradition, due to the nature of transmission (see the Maraghi corpus); however, the 'explosion' of pseudographic pieces in the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially concerning early composers, is likely due to the encroaching Western tradition and its perceived superiority. Compilers of Ottoman compositions during these times had to 'create' a repertoire for earlier times, in order to compete with the earlier repertoire of Western music. Ironically, the actual earlier repertoire of makam music was there, literally hiding in plain sight; in the works we now call Kantemiroğlu Edvârı, Kevserî Mecmuası and Mecmua-ı Saz ü Söz.

(After reading this again, I do feel a bit out of line with how much rambling I did, but I guess my main point is that in the late Ottoman period there were a lot of [seemingly deliberate] false attributions, so this should not be a surprise.)

On the contrary, thanks very much for your very interesting explanations: I am learning a lot from them and that hypothesis to explain the 'explosion of pseudographia' would explain quite a few things.
This Şamlı Selim book has quite a few pieces attributed to Gâzi Giray Han and when you see more of these pieces together it is quite obvious they are not homogeneous: some pieces do feel old and somewhat similar to the Kantemiroğlu pieces, from a time when makams and peşrevs were different, but many pieces indeed feel much more recent, with the modulations fitting much later schemes.
Also if one looks at Gâzi Giray's wikipedia page it does raise questions about when he would have had the time to compose, in between all the politics and military campaigns. The image of the warrior-composer is certainly very seductive for all kinds of reasons, perhaps similar to the Chinese warrior-poets-calligraphers: forceful and refined at the same time, unlike those Western brutes ! (a seductive image because it is also partly true). But Gâzi Giray hardly spent time in Istanbul, so it would also raise the question about how all those pieces would have been transmitted and entered into the general repertoire.
It is really interesting to think about what happened to all these pieces along the way, but overall, the sheer quantity and general reliability of oral transmission in Ottoman music does not cease to amaze.